Of course I was into it!! How else could I consistently come out with hogwash?

I guess the point that I was coming out with is that if Trump talked to this Russian guy in private and shared some undercover secrets they could probably take on some covert stuff together and that was the point of the whole thing. The press is now saying that Trump put these spies in danger and people will die over it because the info got out. If the press didn't put it in the friekin paper for ISIS to see then we wouldn't have a problem would we?

Popper,
Three points:
- Frankly, I'm puzzled by the wishful and, I believe, naive thinking that suggests Russia is suddenly going to do an about face and start working cooperatively with the US to accomplish anything that serves our interests. Trump's inexplicable admiration of Putin notwithstanding, Putin is a smart but ruthlessly brutal thug whose whose driven objective is to return Russia it's former position as a dominant global power player. He'll gladly play with the painfully uninformed and easily flattered Trump in pursuing those goals.

- I don't pay much attention to what the press says about the security implications of Trump's unilateral, impulsive release of sensitive intell to the Russians. I do pay attention to what senior, career intelligence officials, like John McLaughlin who served in the CIA under 7 presidents. And he says that Trump's actions could easily jeopardize not only a crucially positioned, potentially irreplaceable intell asset(s) that have penetrated ISIS but also add to the concerns our allies have about sharing highly sensitive intell with us that Trump will have access to.

- Can we please reconsider the tendency to blame the Media, the Democrats, and/or people within the security community for all of this administration's foul ups and self-inflicted wounds. None of these targets are the cause of Trumps repeated lies, distortions, self-contradictions and impulsive acts.

To be honest tino I don't recall ever seeing anything like that. As we all know there are lots of different agencies and info that is compartmented. So I couldn't say what others might do. I could easily believe high level people working closely with intelligence agencies from other countries would have info they could share with some countries but not others.I would also add, as with basic classification, the president's leeway with sharing information could go beyond any NOFORN determinations.

Nodak,

Again, thanks for the insight. It's clear that the wide array of exceptions/allowances that flow to the presidency assume that the office holder will be thoughtful, informed, and open to appropriate guidance...obviously not always case.

And this thread has now turned in nothing more than rampant speculation based on Headlines from a corrupt media. Throwing shit against a wall to see what can stick has now become a national pastime it seems.

Headline--- "Comey asked for more resources" --- couple of days later , under oath the acting Director sez he knows nothing about it and that they have ALL the resources they need.

Headline--- "Rod Rosenstein is going to quit"(because of Comey note) ---- 2 days later per Rod Rosenstein himself--- "This is just not true and never was"

Headline--- "Trump gave away highly classified documents to Russia, and now people will die and the world will end soon, must be impeached" --- Now 1. "EVEN IF he did --- as the commander and chief he can, without question" Now 2--- "Israel has no problem with this sharing as they also share terrorist info with both Russia and the USA and they all share in hopes of combatting world wide terrorism" Now 3-- "actual people IN the ROOM say that this that he gave them nothing more than he was supposed to, nothing to see here" -- Now 4 --- Russia is even willing to give the world the "records of the WH meeting"

Headline-- 274,797 times--- "Trump colludes/is in pocket off/is being blackmailed by/ Puten and ot Russia " --- all people with actual knowledge-----
"Hmm, no there are no facts that support this claim".

Headlines-- "We only report the news" -- last 20 years --- "this is total bullshit, When organizations present 98% negative stories about Trump, that isn't news it's muckraking for political purposes." -- MDFAN.

Look I was never a big Trump fan as a person, he is an egomaniac, loud mouthed, bully, and treats the truth (like most if not all politicians do) as a suggestion. short tempered man.

BUT I was and am in favor of many (not all) of the directions he expressed as the direction he wanted for the country. And the he was smart enough to beat 17 Repubs and the almighty Democractic machine-- to use the rules to win this election. And the mania that has come on since is frankly --- un-American in my view!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Instead of trying to find ways to improve the US, the media is making this personal and not even pretending to have the countries best interests at heart. All they care about right now is "how can we make Trump look bad" -- if that means half truths, flat making stuff up, or flat out lying by omission.

Where is the media trying to quell this spate of violence, the mocking of the right to free speech on college campuses, the upholding of the right to hear both sides?????? Nowhere that where.

They ought to be fact checking, they need to stop relying on "unnamed sources" (we all know what that is like in sports), they need to separate real news and stop this personalized agenda. Worry about government leaks, and stop worrying about petty junk, that in the big picture isn't what Americans care about! Jobs! Health Care! Taxes! Immigration! These are what people care about, not misleading false narratives about junk!

Tino, haven't the Russians also been targeted by terrorists and also want to stop this radical Islamic terrorism?

MD, Obama was certainly elected to bring about change. He wanted us to move towards socialism and environmentalists. His election platform was "give me a chance to do it my way". He held California up as his gold standard on how to conduct ourselves. He thought that state was Utopia. Heck, they were after he kept sending them billions and billions of dollars because they were bankrupt.

But it's obvious, IMM, that these two couldn't be more different in how the came, what they proposed, and being elected by one of the party machines!

Trumps plans, again I don't not like the guy, but his plans were real changes on how we deal with the world, how we deal with jobs and taxes, with "trying" to change the swamp --- these were changes. Not the pablum was spewed and acted on by Obama (or the left). And his actions have shown that he wants to enact these changes, not just speak about them as we had for 8+ years, and got us to the point that the world took us for pushovers.I'm was tired of it, people were tired of it! That is change not the same ol same ol crap Obama wanted and did.

Tino, haven't the Russians also been targeted by terrorists and also want to stop this radical Islamic terrorism?

Popper,

It could be argued that no country has as a longer and more violent history of terrorism than Russia. In terms of people killed, the lions share of that terrorism has been perpetrated by Russian political figures against the Russian people in an effort to gain or hold political power. (See Tsarist russia; Stalin's purges; the Red Terror; etc)

Islamist generated terrorism has become an issue, especially in Chechnya and Dagestan. The lingering Chechen independence movement has been a major contributor to acts of Islamist 'related' terrorism. Perhaps the most widely known of these terror related acts...a Russian passenger jet flying from Egypt to St Petersburg was brought down in 2015 killing 217 passengers and crew with a branch of ISIL(ISIS) claiming responsibility. I think you've referenced this act as a possible motive for Russia cooperating with us in fighting ISIS.

It's worth noting, in the context of trusting Putin's strong desire to protect the Russian people, that over 300 Russian civilians were killed in a 10 day period in Sept., 1999 in what are referred to as the Russian Apartment Bombings. The bombings, that involved 7 distinct apartment buildings in and around Moscow, were quickly blamed by the Russian government on Chechen rebels and were instrumental in both justifying the Second Chechen War and in solidifying Vladimir Putin's power and popularity, which had been weak and in decline prior to his brutal reprisals against Chechnya...the identified perpetrators of the bombings.

I mention the apartment bombings because it's now widely recognized that Putin himself orchestrated the apartment bombings in a reprehensible (and successful) attempt to invent a villainous scapegoat that he could then "heroically" punish and win back the Russian people's support. I think it's a mistake to trust this soulless thug, who would callously slaughter his own people for political gain, with ANY sensitive intelligence.

It could be argued that no country has as a longer and more violent history of terrorism than Russia. In terms of people killed, the lions share of that terrorism has been perpetrated by Russian political figures against the Russian people in an effort to gain or hold political power. (See Tsarist russia; Stalin's purges; the Red Terror; etc)

Islamist generated terrorism has become an issue, especially in Chechnya and Dagestan. The lingering Chechen independence movement has been a major contributor to acts of Islamist 'related' terrorism. Perhaps the most widely known of these terror related acts...a Russian passenger jet flying from Egypt to St Petersburg was brought down in 2015 killing 217 passengers and crew with a branch of ISIL(ISIS) claiming responsibility. I think you've referenced this act as a possible motive for Russia cooperating with us in fighting ISIS.

It's worth noting, in the context of trusting Putin's strong desire to protect the Russian people, that over 300 Russian civilians were killed in a 10 day period in Sept., 1999 in what are referred to as the Russian Apartment Bombings. The bombings, that involved 7 distinct apartment buildings in and around Moscow, were quickly blamed by the Russian government on Chechen rebels and were instrumental in both justifying the Second Chechen War and in solidifying Vladimir Putin's power and popularity, which had been weak and in decline prior to his brutal reprisals against Chechnya...the identified perpetrators of the bombings.

I mention the apartment bombings because it's now widely recognized that Putin himself orchestrated the apartment bombings in a reprehensible (and successful) attempt to invent a villainous scapegoat that he could then "heroically" punish and win back the Russian people's support. I think it's a mistake to trust this soulless thug, who would callously slaughter his own people for political gain, with ANY sensitive intelligence.

Was it a mistake to trust Stalin in WWII? The bastard would kill anybody in a Russian village that could read because he wanted his people uneducated and ignorant as to what the world was about and tax their belongings to keep the rich happy and him in power. He even made a deal with Hitler to leave him alone and Hitler could have all of Europe. Despite the butcher that he was we aligned with him in WWII because we had a common goal.

There are countless examples of this throughout history and will continue long after we're gone I'm afraid. Islamic terrorists have hit Russia a few times. Maybe we have to align ourselves with them for a common cause here. Then afterwards we might listen to generals like Patton and declare war on them.

Well I thought we were having an honest discussion also. My point was, and continues to be, that the resistance isn't a new and fashionable thing. Doesn't matter the direction of the change or the amount of the change. Obama's campaign, if my memory serves, was based on hope and change. A change from the Bush era. A change from the wars. A change from prisoner treatment (Guantanamo), etc. I'm not touting it was good change just that it was based on change and there was resistance to that. Trump's was also based on change and drain the swamp, etc. Well there is resistance to that. Not new and not a fashionable thing.
To be honest I also like many, very MANY, of the things he advocates. In fact I would say most. I have posted that he has great leeway in his role. I certainly haven't seen anything illegal---although stupid does come to mind. And I have said from the beginning that he had a chance to have a great presidency. But I also believed, and still do, that he is a pos. He wants to be an emperor not a president. He did not have the preparation to be president and was ill prepared for the position. He is like an internet bully who can hide behind his protection. He can say things at a rally like punch him in the face; I wish I could. If it was the schoolyard his next sentence would be...but I hear my mom calling. He says the media treats him so bad yet he brought the vast majority of it onto himself. Shut up. Just shut up and do your job but he can't do that.
Mr. President..... Don't tell me no president ever stepped into a bigger mess because, just in my lifetime, Ford, Reagan, and yes Obama stepped into bigger messes.
Don't tell me Hillary doesn't know what confidential means and we can't trust her with classified information when it sure appears you might have the same problem. Don't give snide little remarks like he better hope there aren't tapes---man up that there are or there aren't. If there is drama in the administration it is coming from him. Give me the change without the crap --- something I don't think he can do.

__________________
"Don't look between the lines for stuff that isn't there" Schwartz
RIP